==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) Even though we know this already from a Kal v'Chomer (i.e. if a Kohen Hedyot is prohibited to become Tamei for Rechokim, then certainly a Kohen Gadol is prohibited), the Gemara derives this prohibition from the verse in order to make it prohibited with two Lavim (Tosfos 49b, DH Al Kol). (Tosfos 49a, DH u'Meshani, adds that since Kerovim are also mentioned in this verse according to Rebbi Akiva, it is a "Klal," and the phrase "l'Aviv' is a "Prat," and thus we would have learned this verse as a "Klal u'Prat" to exclude his mother, if "u'l'Imo" had not been written.)

(2) Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue about this in Sanhedrin (4a). According to Rebbi Akiva, "Yesh Em l'Mikra," and according to Rebbi Yishmael, "Yesh Em l'Mesores."

(3) This is the straightforward implication of the Sugya, in which Rebbi Akiva derives from "Al Kol" the prohibition to become Tamei for Rechokim. (See, however, Tosfos 49b, DH Al Kol, who writes that Rebbi Akiva learns this from "Nafshos," written in the plural form. Many Acharonim are perplexed with the words of this Tosfos; see Hagahos Rav Betzalel Rensburg.)

(4) If the word "l'Aviv" had not been written, we would have thought that he may become Tamei for his father, since he and his father are considered to be family to a greater degree (as learned from the verse, "l'Mishpechosam l'Veis Avosam"). Therefore, the Torah must say that he cannot become Tamei even "l'Aviv." (According to Tosfos 49a, DH u'Meshani, the reason why we would have thought that he may become Tamei for his father is because the verse writes a "Klal" ("Kol Nafshos Mes"), and then a "Prat" ("l'Imo"), teaching a "Klal u'Prat," in which case the "Klal" includes only the item of the "Prat" -- as in footnote #1 above.)

(5) The Gezeirah Shavah teaches that he is not prohibited from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Zivah or Tzora'as. It is primarily teaching that he is not prohibited from becoming Tamei with Tum'as Tzora'as even though a Metzora is compared to a Mes (Tosfos 48a, DH Hachi Garsinan). According to Rebbi Yishmael, the word used for the Gezeirah Shavah must be "extraneous on both sides" (in the Parshah of Nazir and in the Parshah of Kohen Gadol), while according to Rebbi Akiva, it suffices if the word is "extraneous on one side" (Tosfos 48b, DH Ha and DH u'l'Achoso).

(6) These are the words of the verse as it appears in Bamidbar 6:6. (Although a number of Rishonim quote the verse as "Al Kol Nefesh," they are not trying to quote the verse verbatim, and they are merely borrowing the wording that the Torah uses in the Parshah of Kohen Gadol. See the comment of the "Hagahah" in Tosfos 49b, DH Al Kol, and Hagahos Rav Betzalel Rensburg ad loc. See also Arzei ha'Levanon, #86.)

(7) So writes Tosfos 49a, DH u'Meshani; according to Rebbi Yishmael we do not learn the Isur of Kerovim from this verse. This is also evident from the fact that he requires "l'Aviv" to teach the Isur of Kerovim.

(8) From here we learn not only that he may be not become Tamei for his father, but even that he may not become Tamei for his mother -- even though there is a logical reason to allow him to become Tamei for her (since she is known definitively to be his mother). That is, Rebbi Yishmael holds that we do learn the Isur of becoming Tamei for his mother from the Isur of becoming Tamei for his father. (This is either because Rebbi Yishmael does not agree with the aforementioned logic, or because he derives the Isur to become Tamei for his mother's family from a Kal v'Chomer, as Tosfos 48a, DH v'Ein, writes. Alternatively, he does not hold that "Al Nefesh Mes" is a "Klal," hence he does not learn the verse of "l'Aviv" as a "Klal u'Prat, as Tosfos 49a, DH u'Meshani, writes.)

(9) If "u'l'Imo" had not been written, we would have thought that he may become Tamei for his mother, since she is known definitely to be his mother (while the fact that his father is his father is based only on a Chazakah -- see Insights). Therefore the Torah writes "u'l'Imo" to teach that he may not become Tamei for his mother. This is the straightforward way of understanding the Sugya, as explained by Tosfos DH u'Meshani in his first explanation, and Tosfos 48b, DH l'Aviv (where he offers that logic that "Al Nefesh Mes" is a "Klal" and "l'Aviv" is a "Prat," teaching a "Klal u'Prat" -- that the "Klal" includes only the item of the "Prat"; see footnote #1,8).

(10) What is added in parentheses in our chart represents the Maskanah of Tosfos (49b, DH u'Meshani), that Rebbi Akiva does not need this word to include the Nazir's mother in the Isur, since we can learn from the verse in the Parshah of Kohen Gadol that one's father and mother are the same with regard to the Isur of Tum'ah (see row 2a:B). Hence, no verse is necessary to teach this in the case of Nazir, and "u'l'Imo" is thus left open to teach that a Nazir who is a Kohen Hedyot may become Tamei for a Mes Mitzvah (as Rebbi Akiva explicitly learns in Zevachim 100a). This is in contrast to the explanation of Tosfos 48b, DH l'Aviv.

(11) Even though we already know that a Kohen Gadol may be Metamei to a Mes Mitzvah, Rebbi Yishmael does not learn from the Gezeirah Shavah of "u'l'Imo" that a Nazir may not be Metamei to his mother as well (see Tosfos 48a, DH Hachi Garsinan, and Insights there). According to Rebbi Yishmael, it makes no difference whether there is one Lav or two, and thus from here we learn that a Nazir, a Nazir who is a Kohen, and a Nazir who is a Kohen Gadol may all become Tamei for a Mes Mitzvah.

(12) This verse teaches that even though he is being Mevatel a Mitzvah whose lack of fulfillment is punishable with Kares, nevertheless he may become Tamei for a Mes Mitzvah.